Wednesday, 28 November 2012

Hats off to Jayden Cameron for this link to an interesting post that speaks for itself !

Jayden writes : The following is an alarming summary of recent 'crimes'
and negative actions perpetuated by the Roman Catholic Church. I hesitated
re-posting it from Alt.
Net.Org, because it is harrowing and depressing, and clearly the view of an
outsider - yet this is how most non Catholics view the Church, and it makes for
a salutary and very necessary shock to the system. The time for complacency is
long past.

50 Reasons to Boycott the
Catholic Church

The Church uses its resources to oppose social
progress and positive change all over the world.

November 26,
2012 |

Photo Credit:
AFP

Last month in Ireland, Savita Halappanavar
died, and she shouldn't have. Savita was a 31-year-old married woman, four
months pregnant, who went to the hospital with a miscarriage in progress that
developed into a blood infection. She could easily have been saved if the
already doomed fetus was aborted. Instead, her doctors did nothing, explaining
that "this is a Catholic country," and left her to suffer in agony for days,
only intervening once it was too late.

Savita's death is just the latest in a long
line of tragedies directly attributable to the doctrines and beliefs of the
Roman Catholic church. I acknowledge that there are many good, progressive
Catholics, but the problem is that the church isn't a democracy, and those
progressives have no voice or vote in its governance. The church is a petrified
oligarchy, a dictatorship like the medieval monarchies it once existed
alongside, and it's run by a small circle of conservative, rigidly ideological
old men who make all the decisions and choose their own successors.

This means that, whatever individual Catholics
may do, the resources of the church as an institution are bent toward opposing
social progress and positive change all over the world. Every dollar you put
into the church collection plate, every Sunday service you attend, every hour of
time and effort you put into volunteering or working for church organizations,
is inevitably a show of support for the institutional church and its abhorrent
mission. When you have no voice, there's only one thing left to do: boycott.
Stop supporting the church with your money and your time. For lifelong
Catholics, it's a drastic step, but it's more than justified by the wealth of
reasons showing that the church as an institution is beyond reform, and the only
meaningful response is to part ways with it. Here are just a few of those
reasons:

1. Throughout the world, Catholic bishops have
engaged in a systematic, organized effort going back decades to cover up for
priests who molest children, pressuring the victims to sign confidentiality
agreements and quietly assigning the predators to new parishes where they could
go on molesting. Tens of thousands of children have been raped and tortured as a
result of this conspiracy of silence.

2. Strike one: "What
did the pope know and when did he know it?" The current pope, when he was
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was personally implicated in a case from the 1970s in
which at least three sets of parents reported that a priest in his diocese had
sexually abused their children. In response, Ratzinger assigned the priest to
therapy, without notifying law enforcement, and washed his hands of the matter.
That priest was back on duty in just a few short days and went on to molest more
children.

3. Strike two: In 1981, again when the current
pope was Cardinal Ratzinger, he got a letter from the diocese of Oakland asking
him to defrock a priest who had acknowledged molesting two children. Ratzinger
ignored this letter, and several followup letters, for four years. Finally, in
1985, he wrote back saying that more time was needed, and that they had to
proceed very slowly to safeguard "the
good of the Universal Church" in light of "the young age of the petitioner"
-- by which he meant not the victimized children, but the pedophile priest. (By
contrast, when a rogue archbishop ordained married men as priests, he
was laicized six days later.)

4. Strike three: In 2001, Cardinal Ratzinger
wrote a letter, De Delictis Gravioribus, to all Catholic bishops
advising them how to handle accusations of sex crimes by priests. There was no
recommendation to contact the police, but rather an instruction for them to
report such cases only to the Vatican and tell no one else: "Cases
of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret."

·Impose a translation of the missal without any consultation after appointing a secretive commission ‘Vox Clara’ to finish off the job.

·Put all religious sisters in the U.S. under Papal scrutiny without consultation

·Equate discussion with dissent.Looking at the past, take for example the doctrine of ‘reception’ of church teaching e.g. humane Vitae, or the principle of Vox Populi vox Dei – so important in the Arian controversy – this would now be seen as dissent ! ! !

·Replace the authority of, implementation of and interpretation of an Ecumenical Council (Vatican II) with that of the opinion of the Bishop of Rome !

·Cover up and delay dealing with child abuse crises and even a senior Cardinal (Sodano) referring to the crisis as ‘idle chatter’

Peter’s Pence generated $82.5 million dollars in 2009. Only ‘Cor Unum’ published details of their $8.6 million allocation from Peter’s Pence, approx. 10.5 per cent of the $82.5 million.The Vatican has not released figures on how it spent the rest of Peter’s Pence in 2009. (c.f. Render Unto Rome : Jason Berry pg 37).

Jesus had little time for those who put the institution before the spirit as in the 23rd chapter of Matthew’s Gospel. Did Jesus dialogue with the representatives of the institution (Pharisees) or did he simply recognise hypocrisy for what it is ?After all, the institution crucified our Saviour.

Is Saying No to Peters Pence really so out of proportion, in the light of the Vatican’s implementation of it’s ungenerous and limiting policies in the last decades?

Tuesday, 20 November 2012

The Dismissal of Fr Roy Bourgeois - yet another heavy handed manouvre by a church authority becoming more insecure by the day - what are they frightened of?

STATEMENT ABOUT MY DISMISSAL FROM MARYKNOLL

I have been a Catholic priest in the Maryknoll community for 40 years. As a young man I joined Maryknoll because of its work for justice and equality in the world. To be expelled from Maryknoll and the priesthood for believing that women are also called to be priests is very difficult and painful.

The Vatican and Maryknoll can dismiss me, but they cannot dismiss the issue of gender equality in the Catholic Church. The demand for gender equality is rooted in justice and dignity and will not go away.

As Catholics, we profess that God created men and women of equal worth and dignity. As priests, we profess that the call to the priesthood comes from God, only God. Who are we, as men, to say that our call from God is authentic, but God's call to women is not? The exclusion of women from the priesthood is a grave injustice against women, our Church and our loving God who calls both men and women to be priests

When there is an injustice, silence is the voice of complicity. My conscience compelled me to break my silence and address the sin of sexism in my Church. My only regret is that it took me so long to confront the issue of male power and domination in the Catholic Church.

I have explained my position on the ordination of women, and how I came to it, in my booklet, My Journey from Silence to Solidarity. Please go to: www.roybourgeoisjourney.org.

Tuesday, 13 November 2012

In November 2010 the
Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales issued ‘Guidelines’ for the Publication of
Liturgical Books.”It aimed to
“authorize . . . guidelines for the use and publication of liturgical materials.”
(paragraph 2)

All seems innocent
enough.After all guidelines are a ‘principle put forward to determine a course of
action.’Paragraph 2 further reads. . .

“The Conference, through
these bodies, (the Catholic Trust for England and Wales, Colloquium and the
Liturgy Office of the Department for Christian Life and Worship) wishes to
cooperate as fully as possible with all publishers, editors, writers, and
composers.”

“As regards the publication
of liturgical books translated into the vernacular which are the property of a
given Conference of Bishops, the right of publication is reserved to those
editors to whom the Conference of Bishops shall have given this right by
contract, with due regard for the requirements both of civil law and juridical
custom prevailing in each country for the publication of books. (LA 115)”

If the “publication of
liturgical books translated into the vernacular . .are the property of a given Conference of
Bishops,” then what authority, if any, does the ‘given Conference of Bishops’
have to counter any opposition towards the new translation of the Roman Missal
which many
people find unacceptable?

Having had the translation
imposed, it appears that Bishops and clergy have to implement it without
question and that the Bishops Conference of England and Wales (BCOEW) does not
have any ownership of the translation as implied in paragraph 3.Those that do speak out are ‘dealt with’ as
in the case ofRev.
William Rowe.

There is an acceptance that
nothing can be done to counter the imposition of the new Missal so any
opposition raised by clergy or lay people is simply ignored or smothered by
platitudes.

In the next paragraph a
rather Orwellian statement changes the tone somewhat.

“The purpose of this
national episcopal responsibility – and of the present guidelines – is not only to
assert authoritative control but to encourage, and collaborate in, the
production and publication of the most effective and excellent liturgical books
and other materials.” (Paragraph 4)

We have already heard that
the Bishops want to work and collaborate in the production of excellent
materials in paragraph 2.In Paragraph 4
the document ‘slips in’ what I feel is it’s real aim in such a way that it
almost doesn’t want you to notice – to assert authoritative control !

Liturgists, Composers and
Music groups up and down the country have been working with Bishops and clergy
for years.National organisations such
as the Society of St Gregoryencourage excellence.Local Diocesan based groups have run courses
for Liturgical excellence and many Diocese have a liturgy commission.If ‘authoritative control’ was not the aim of
the document then I wonder why the following developments have occurred since
the publication of “Guidelines’ for the
Publication of Liturgical Books.”

Decani Music have published
a new version of their hymn book “Laudate.”Their advertising
states that;

“With the Nihil Obstat and
Imprimatur, this is the first officially authorised hymnbook since the
introduction of the new translation.”

“Certain hymns had to have
verbal changesin order to obtain
the Nihil Obstat(85, 148, 475, 643,
957), and three have been removed (470, 649 and 650).”

I did wonder if this was a
ploy to make the hymnbook more saleable in the present climate, though
submitting their hymn book to editorial control outside of their company and
having to rewrite the words of some hymns in
order to obtain the Nihil Obstat almost reads as an act of censure.

If this were an isolated
case I could dismiss my concerns about “authoritative control” and be grateful
that the BCOEW are keen to support liturgical excellence.

McCrimmons are publishing a
revised edition of “Celebration Hymnal For Everyone.”The announcement on their homepage reads,

“The revision of the hymnal has been submitted to the
Bishops’ Conference of Eng & Wales for approval. It will incorporate Mass
settings in accordance with the 2010 revision of the Roman Missal.”

Is
this authoritative control or an expression of the conferences “wishes to cooperate as fully as possible with all
publishers, editors, writers, and composers” ? (paragraph 2).

Is the editorial control
exercised by the BCOEW restricted to hymn books ?

Many parishes use “Sunday
Bulletin” published by Redemptorist Publications as the basis of a weekly
parish newsletter. Sometime since Advent 2011, they now include an imprimatur
by +Kieran Conry.

Why on earth has this sort
of editorial control found it’s way into the running of the ‘local’ catholic
church? I know what I think, but I feel Bishops Conference and clergy can’t let
us know what they really think for
fear of being ‘dealt with.’

Cardinal Martini was right
when he said in his last interview, “the Church’s bureaucratic apparatus is
growing,” and that the church is “fearful instead of courageous”. All the above
is evidence of this growing bureaucracy which no Bishops Conference speaks out
about, choosing to be “fearful instead of courageous.”

It has become commonplace
for new Parish priests to state an oath of allegiance on
induction in a new parish where they;

“submit their will and
intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of
Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they
do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”

This translates in my mind
to “I must do as I’m told.”Little
wonder with the growth of this sort of oath of fidelity no-one dares to speaks
out.

For years the church has
wanted an educated laity.It was
Cardinal Newman’s great desire.Nowadays
education seems to come second place to intellectual servility. If priests, who
are supposed to be educated can “submit their will and intellect,” in the
service of the magisterium then I think Newman would be appalled at such Ultra
Montanism.

How on earth can the BCOEW
police their authoritative control ?As
a parish organist and choirmaster I compose psalm settings and mass settings
for use in Sunday Worship.I can’t
imagine I’m the only pastoral musician in the country to do this.Where would we have time to submit our work
to the BCOEW aswe compose week by
week?Even if we could, should we?

Apart
from those with a vested interest in obtaining a Nihil Obstat for their
publications, who will really notice if big brother is watching ? Perhaps it’s
just a case of the Magisterium saying “Jump” and the BCOEW asking ‘how
high?’or is the church that just wants
us to pray, pay and obey back ?

Monday, 12 November 2012

An interesting Post from Pray Tell Blog on reaction to the new translation, one year on . . . .
The December U.S. Catholic (print edition, not yet online) looks at the new missal’s first year in “Words Fail Us.” It’s a rather devastating critique of the whole thing. Their online survey was completed by 1,231 priests and 1,208 laypeople. I know, I know, it’s probably a self-selecting audience that goes to USCath, as is the case with the commbox at Fr. Z’s WDTPRS or anywhere else. But still, this is pretty serious stuff, the reactions of the USCath crowd.

58% of the priests checked “I dislike the new translations and still can’t believe I’ll have to use them for the foreseeable future.” Only 4% say “I was unsure about it at first, but I’ve grown accustomed to the new translations.” Only 9% say “I personally enjoy the new translations as much as, if not more than, the old version.” If given the option, 76% of priests would go back to the old translation. Over three fourths! Only 16% of priests say that the new translations have had a positive effect on their prayerfulness during Mass – 75% disagree. 10% of the priests have heard parishioners tell them that they were leaving to worship in other churches over the language changes in the Mass.

Asked to comment on the most difficult part about making the transition, the priest respondents gave an earful. “Acting like I appreciate the new texts when I find them to be terrible,” said Fr. James Sauer in Evansville IN. “Handling the disappointment of the people and realizing their complaints are well founded,” from Fr. Patrick Connor in Nashville, TN. “Mastering the art of speaking like Yoda,” said Fr. Brian Fischer in Chicago.

Asked what as a presider the new text has made them, Fr. Francis Gignac SJ replied “Annoyed.” “Enjoy saying Mass far less,” said Fr. Stanley Robert Azaro, OP. “Feel like a robot with no heart or soul,” said Fr. John Francis Samsa of Apleton, WI. “Resentful. It was a poor process and a poor translation, period,” said Fr. Jack Conley, CP.

But not all is a loss. Asked to comment on positive effects, Fr. Alan Phillip of Sierra Madre, CA said “At times we have had a few good laughs because of the convoluted language.”
Priests were given an opportunity to make suggestions to improve the translation. All the expected answers came in: get rid of “And with your spirit,” “chalice,” “Consubstantial,” “I” in the creed, and so forth. And this: “Throw it all out and start over,” from Fr. Paul Freemesser in Rochester, NY.
49% of the laity still dislike the new translation but will put up with it; 17% don’t like the new translations much but don’t think it’s a big deal; 17% like the new translations as much as or more than the old one, and 6% were unsure at first but have grown accustomed to the new translations. Not exactly a happy acceptance.

Only 21% of laity agree that the new translation has had a positive effect on their prayer and participation – 70% of laity disagree. 25% of laity know people who have left to worship elsewhere because of the missal change. 54% of laity wish we could go back to the old translation – only 29% disagree.

So now what? What do bishops do with sentiments like this among their flock?
I know, I know, this isn’t a scientific survey. But it’s not nothing, either.
I expect bishops would want to do a lot more to find out how widespread the views in the survey are. Wouldn’t you think?

UPDATE Monday morning: I see that USCath posted part of the issue right after I posted. I see a causal connection and am amazed at the power of this blog – makes me wish I had posted sooner so USCath had too. It’s here.

Thursday, 8 November 2012

In the UK’s Independent (4 Nov., 2012) there is an extraordinary telling article regarding the absolute dysfunction of the Roman Catholic church in that part of Europe. It is written by a teacher at the Dublin City University, Colum Kenny. It could have been written in any English-speaking jurisdiction including Canada. Basically it deals with the stunning arrogance of papal-appointed bishops so convinced of their rectitude and episcopal power that they do not have to listen to the people they are sworn to serve. One hardly knows where to start with such appalling behaviour. It would appear they are deeply enmeshed in ‘System think’. They appear totally enmeshed organisational molasses far from being a community of believers in the same church. They seem tone deaf to the voice of fellow Christians in an organic body. Here in brief is the story.

The Irish Bishops Conference has refused to meet with the Association of Catholic Priests, 1,000 strong in this small Catholic country. The reason of course is they fear what the front-line providers are going to say to them. Vatican ll insisted that bishops are not branch plant managers, sent from headquarters to enforce the Roman line. Lumen Gentium (27) stated that they are not to be regarded as “vicars of the Roman pontiff.” Vatican ll insisted that the bishops were there, ‘teaching sanctifying and governing’. One verb is missing: Listening.

It was the martyred Lutheran Dietrich Bonhoeffer who put his finger on this refusal to listen deeply:

“The first service that one owes to others in community consists in listening to them. Just as love for God begins with listening to His Word, so the beginning of love for the brethren is learning to listen to them. It is God’s love for us that He not only gives His Word but also lends us His ear … Many people are looking for an ear that will listen. They do not find it among Christians because these Christians are talking where they should be listening. But he who can no longer listen to his brother will soon be no longer listening to God either; he will be doing nothing but prattle in the presence of God. This is the beginning of the death of the spiritual life, and, in the end, there is nothing left but spiritual chatter and clerical condescension arrayed in pious words”.

Fifty years after the Council’s inception, there has been much movement in this regard, in hearing the lived experience of the baptized and integrating in ecclesial life.

The great Anglican convert John Henry Newman inspired much of the thinking that it is the entire People of God which is the bearer of the Spirit. As an Anglican he never bought the cult of the papacy, “a church with a church” he called it. By the time of the Council this ultramontane view had become rigid in the Roman Church. The pope was infallible (by himself), his bishops too at the local level and the priest was the voice of God in the parish. Infallibility previously had been exercised in many ways —councils, papal pronouncements and the witness of the entire people. By 1962 there had been was a massive delegitimizing of the lay voice. Pius Xl phrased it well in 1939, saying the Roman church had become a monstrosity, is head is way out of proportion to its body. Cardinal Newman had been saying all of this in his own way.The papal magisterium can never be the sole locus of truth. The voice of great theologians those who advanced the understanding of the great Mystery must be taken into considration.

Vatican ll (1962-65) began the massive corrective. The vast majority of the baptized must be heard.

The Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) states this quite nicely:

“Those who exercise episcope in the Body of Christ must not be separated from the ‘symphony’ of the whole people of God in which they have their part to play. They need to be alert to the sensus fidelium, in which they share, if they are to be made aware when something is needed for the well-being and mission of the community, or when some element of the Tradition needs to be received in a fresh way”. (#30)

As the Irish would say, who do these bishops think they are? It’s not as if they are riding high in the polls after shocking scandal after scandal has emptied churches in this almost totally Catholic country, they are acting like fossilised bureaucrats in a church which has privileged communio. They have not grasped that the day is long gone when diktats from the centre carry much weight. The Church as politburo is a non-starter.

If these silly men will not meet with their priests, what are lay people to think? One Catholic layman Geoffrey Chaucer phrased it well in the 14th century, ‘If gold ruste what shall iron do?’

Thursday, 1 November 2012

On Wednesday Mgr. Dal Covolo will deliver the position paper for the late Pope’s beatification, just 33 days ahead of his election

“Some interesting new facts have come to light regarding Pope Luciani’s state of health, thanks to the testimonies (167 people have been heard) and medical documents collected. These sources definitively confirm that he was not killed.” This is according to Mgr. Enrico Dal Covolo, Rector of the Pontifical Lateran University and Postulator of John Paul I’s sainthood cause, who spoke to Italian news channel Tgcom24 in an interview on Pope Luciani who passed away after just 33 on the papal throne. In two days, on 17 October, it will be his 100th birthday.

On Wednesday Mgr. Dal Covolo will deliver the first part of the Positio - the documentation on John Paul I’s heroic virtues, on his life and on the miracle he is believed to have performed – to the Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, Cardinal Angelo Amato.

“We will deliver the Positio on 17 October - the postulator said – and the process for determining the Pope’s miracle will continue. I am certain that the Pope will soon be proclaimed a saint, though we still do not know exactly when. The cause is hanging by a very thin thread and we need to be careful!”

“I met with Pope Benedict XVI about a week ago – Mgr. Dal Covolo added – and he confirmed he was very glad about this step forward in the late Pope’s beatification process, advising me to be cautious. He strongly supports this cause, with great affection and interest. He gave a special blessing.”